Ex Parte Regimbal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 2012

11753328 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte LAURENT A. REGIMBAL, ERIC TUNKS, and EDMOND I. BAILEY ____________ Appeal 2010-007693 Application 11/753,328 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-007693 Application 11/753,328 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Representative Claim 1. An information handling system comprising: a chassis having exterior walls, the walls having one or more blanks, the blanks selectively removable for replacement by a component, the blanks having venting; a motherboard disposed in the chassis, the motherboard operable to accept plural components, the components operable to cooperate to process information; a cooling fan disposed proximate the chassis, the cooling fan aligned to provide cooling airflow across the components at variable fan speeds, the fan speeds determined by reference to a thermal profile; and a thermal profile manager interfaced with the cooling fan and operable to select a thermal profile for the cooling fan based on whether a blank or a component is present at the chassis wall. Prior Art Lee US 2003/0095381 A1 May 22, 2003 Alperin US 2005/0128700 A1 June 16, 2005 Miyamoto US 7,269,006 B2 Sep. 11, 2007 Appeal 2010-007693 Application 11/753,328 3 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1-6, 10-14, and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alperin, Lee, and Miyamoto. Claims 7-9, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alperin, Lee, Miyamoto, and Official notice. ANALYSIS Section 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 Appellants contend that the combination of Alperin, Lee, and Miyamoto does not teach “a thermal profile manager interfaced with the cooling fan and operable to select a thermal profile for the cooling fan based on whether a blank or a component is present at the chassis wall” as recited in claim 1. In particular, Appellants contend that Alperin does not teach management of thermal conditions based on venting available to cool components. App. Br. 3-4; Reply Br. 1. Alperin teaches that an operating curve selector automatically adapts a cooling system by applying cooling system parameters for components of an information handling system. ¶¶ 14, 17. Lee teaches that the components can be blanks or filler cards that occupy slots in the absence of functional electronic cards. ¶ 24. Miyamoto teaches that the blanks can provide venting for a cooling air draft. Figs. 35, 36; col. 26, ll. 23-35. Alperin further teaches that the nature and efficiency of the cooling air draft depends on the presence of air shrouds or other devices to help direct airflow. ¶ 15. Considering that the Examiner has shown the presence of components that help direct airflow, such as the venting blanks taught by Lee and Miyamoto, when applying cooling system parameters for components as Appeal 2010-007693 Application 11/753,328 4 taught by Alperin, we find that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods yields the predictable result of selecting a thermal profile for a cooling fan based on whether a blank or a component is present at the chassis wall. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2, 5, and 6 which fall with claim 1. Section 103 rejection of claims 7-9 Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 7-9, which fall with claim 1. Section 103 rejection of claims 3 and 4 Appellants contend that Alperin does not suggest discovery of a blank as opposed to discovery of a component. App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 2. Alperin teaches discovery of components. ¶ 17. Lee (¶ 24) and Miyamoto (Fig. 36) teach that the components can be venting blanks. Appellants’ arguments attack Alperin individually, but do not sufficiently address the combined teachings of Alperin, Lee, and Miyamoto. One cannot show non- obviousness by attacking references individually, where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claim 4, which falls with claim 3. Appeal 2010-007693 Application 11/753,328 5 Section 103 rejection of claims 10-14 Appellants contend that the combination of Alperin, Lee, and Miyamoto does not teach “selecting a thermal profile based upon the detected venting” as recited in claim 10. App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 2. Appellants’ Specification discloses that venting is detected by determining the presence of a venting blank. Spec. 6:30–7:20. We find that the combination of Alperin, Lee, and Miyamoto teaches “selecting a thermal profile based upon the detected venting” for the reasons given in our analysis of claim 1. We sustain the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 11-14, which fall with claim 10. Section 103 rejection of claim 15 Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claim 15, which falls with claim 10. Section 103 rejection of claim 16 Appellants contend that Alperin does not teach “engaging a switch with a blank coupled to the chassis” as recited in claim 16. App. Br. 5. The Examiner finds Alperin teaches a CPU, which is a switch (Ans. 8), that detects components (Ans. 4 (citing ¶ 17)). Appellants contend that the CPU of Alperin does not engage a blank. Reply Br. 2. We find that the CPU of Alperin is a switch that engages components. The combination of Lee and Miyamoto teaches that the components can be venting blanks. Appellants’ arguments attack Alperin individually, but do not sufficiently address the combination of Alperin, Lee, and Miyamoto. Appeal 2010-007693 Application 11/753,328 6 We sustain the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claims 17-19 Appellants contend that the combination of Alperin, Lee, and Miyamoto does not teach “a thermal profile manager interfaced with the cooling system and operable to select a thermal profile for the cooling system based on detection of venting available through a wall of the chassis” as recited in claim 17. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2. We find this argument unpersuasive for the reasons given in our analysis of claim 1. We sustain the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 18 and 19, which fall with claim 17. Section 103 rejection of claim 20 Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claim 20, which falls with claim 17. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-6, 10-14, and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alperin, Lee, and Miyamoto is affirmed. The rejection of claims 7-9, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alperin, Lee, Miyamoto, and Official notice is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). Appeal 2010-007693 Application 11/753,328 7 AFFIRMED babc